OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[StrangeSox]

Btw focusing on one sometimes-affordable aspect of dental care makes it seem like you're intentionally ignoring the larger issue.

[Jake]

I pay over $100 to get fillings even with dental insurance??

[Y2HH]

With insurance my fillings and checkups are 100% covered...crowns and root canals are 80%.

 

That is, to a maximum of 2,000$ a year.

[EvilMonkey]

Btw focusing on one sometimes-affordable aspect of dental care makes it seem like you're intentionally ignoring the larger issue.

No, I am cherry-picking out one issue to see how far you will twist things to make it seem like a dental epidemic exists. Yes, root canals are expensive, for many even with insurance. SOme regular inexpensive checkups and a manageable filling now and then when required can forestall most of those. But those would require people giving up something else. AND while I am fully away that there are people that even $60 would be a huge burden, those are what percentage of the population? .05% less?

[StrangeSox]

It was your assertion, why don't you do the legwork to actually support something you say.

[kapkomet]

It was your assertion, why don't you do the legwork to actually support something you say.

 

Please pay for all my insurance. I'm too poor. Please?!?

 

/carry on

[EvilMonkey]

It was your assertion, why don't you do the legwork to actually support something you say.

You seem so generous with other people's money. Do you at least follow thru and be at least as generous with your own money? I do. Last year we donated 7% in direct cash donations to charities, as well as over $1000 of material goods. Wife and I also volunteer about 30 hours a month as well. I give enough, and I have been doing it on my own, not thru government cashgrabs. If you want to feel better about yourself, and help your fellow man, go donate some of YOUR money and time. Stop trying to donate mine.

[StrangeSox]

So no legwork to back up your assumptions that allow you to hand-waive away the entire issue, then. Oh well.

[EvilMonkey]

So no legwork to back up your assumptions that allow you to hand-waive away the entire issue, then. Oh well.

So, no donations from your own pocket, eh?

 

And if you read what I wrote, I asked a question, not stated a fact. Comprehension seems to elude you often.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Alpha Dog

[StrangeSox]

You started with the assertion that if they'd only give up eating out, they could easily afford a $60 cleaning. When pressed on that a little, you threw out a percentage assumption that falls right in line with what you were saying in the first place. Sure, it was phrased as a "question," but, rhetorically, it really wasn't. This is clear because you need that percentage or something close to it to justify your initial statement. You're right that you have yet to state any facts and are just carelessly throwing out "questions" and assertions to justify your slandering of the poor and uninsured. The burden is still on you to make your argument.

 

Or you could actually address the larger point instead of focusing only on $60 dental checkups.

[EvilMonkey]

You started with the assertion that if they'd only give up eating out, they could easily afford a $60 cleaning. When pressed on that a little, you threw out a percentage assumption that falls right in line with what you were saying in the first place. Sure, it was phrased as a "question," but, rhetorically, it really wasn't. This is clear because you need that percentage or something close to it to justify your initial statement. You're right that you have yet to state any facts and are just carelessly throwing out "questions" and assertions to justify your slandering of the poor and uninsured. The burden is still on you to make your argument.

 

Or you could actually address the larger point instead of focusing only on $60 dental checkups.

The larger point that you want to be ultra-generous with everyone else's money but not your own? I did, you ignored it.

[StrangeSox]

There's a lot of bad assumptions buried in that, too. But, no, that's just another weak attempted deflection.

[bmags]

With insurance my fillings and checkups are 100% covered...crowns and root canals are 80%.

 

That is, to a maximum of 2,000$ a year.

 

Damn dude.

[kapkomet]

There's a lot of bad assumptions buried in that, too. But, no, that's just another weak attempted deflection.

 

 

lol

 

weak

[Y2HH]

Damn dude.

 

While mostly good, keep in mind a single crown or root canal will cost 1200$ or more...and the maximum is 2000$. So, essentially, don't let something major happen more than once a year and I'm ok.

 

Even with good insurance, dental work tends to be pretty overpriced. But once again, this isn't the insurance company screwing us, it's the dentists.

 

One of my best friends father is a dentist (just retiring), so I have a bit of insider info on these types of things...if you get a crown, the tooth they have to make in a lab costs about 200$-230$ to make, $230 model using top end base metals...yet they charge you upwards of 800$ for that tooth, and then the labor makes up for the remaining 1000-1200$ bill your insurance company will receive.

 

I know, because I just received one.

 

But once again, not the insurance companies fault that the markup on what should cost about 400$ to have done costs 1200$ instead.

[bmags]

While mostly good, keep in mind a single crown or root canal will cost 1200$ or more...and the maximum is 2000$. So, essentially, don't let something major happen more than once a year and I'm ok.

 

Even with good insurance, dental work tends to be pretty overpriced. But once again, this isn't the insurance company screwing us, it's the dentists.

 

One of my best friends father is a dentist (just retiring), so I have a bit of insider info on these types of things...if you get a crown, the tooth they have to make in a lab costs about 200$-230$ to make, $230 model using top end base metals...yet they charge you upwards of 800$ for that tooth, and then the labor makes up for the remaining 1000-1200$ bill your insurance company will receive.

 

I know, because I just received one.

 

But once again, not the insurance companies fault that the markup on what should cost about 400$ to have done costs 1200$ instead.

 

They also prevented dental hygeinists from performing cleanings on their own, which would drive down cleaning appointment costs.

 

^this is something ACA addresses, too, btw.

[bmags]

While mostly good, keep in mind a single crown or root canal will cost 1200$ or more...and the maximum is 2000$. So, essentially, don't let something major happen more than once a year and I'm ok.

 

Even with good insurance, dental work tends to be pretty overpriced. But once again, this isn't the insurance company screwing us, it's the dentists.

 

One of my best friends father is a dentist (just retiring), so I have a bit of insider info on these types of things...if you get a crown, the tooth they have to make in a lab costs about 200$-230$ to make, $230 model using top end base metals...yet they charge you upwards of 800$ for that tooth, and then the labor makes up for the remaining 1000-1200$ bill your insurance company will receive.

 

I know, because I just received one.

 

But once again, not the insurance companies fault that the markup on what should cost about 400$ to have done costs 1200$ instead.

 

but anyway, I just ended up paying 65% of my cleaning bill. I have to call them today to see if that's accurate. If they don't cover that...smh

[Y2HH]

I thought this was appropriate for this thread as one of the things I've been saying for a lonnnnng time is that hospitals are the majority of the problem when it comes to pricing, and how they use insurance companies to skyrocket prices, and then hide behind them when the blame game begins. Some of the price markups they show in this video highlight exactly what I've been saying for years now.

 

[StrangeSox]

"As Obamacare drives out whats left of markets in medicine [...]" It also seems odd to have nurses in charge of building maintenance and HR. Does double-tasking a nurse really prove more efficient in the long-run?

 

These surgery centers are great for certain types of patients, but they don't serve the same clientele as full-service hospitals, nor do they generally have the ability to handle a major event during surgery (such as you going into cardiac arrest). Reason.tv seems to be arguing against the very concept of insurance risk pools in that video, instead advocating that we each foot our own bill every time.

[Y2HH]

"As Obamacare drives out whats left of markets in medicine [...]" It also seems odd to have nurses in charge of building maintenance and HR. Does double-tasking a nurse really prove more efficient in the long-run?

 

These surgery centers are great for certain types of patients, but they don't serve the same clientele as full-service hospitals, nor do they generally have the ability to handle a major event during surgery (such as you going into cardiac arrest). Reason.tv seems to be arguing against the very concept of insurance risk pools in that video, instead advocating that we each foot our own bill every time.

 

Wow.

 

It's astounding to me that out of that entire video, that's all you take from it. That a nurse poses double duty and cleans, too, and perhaps those specialty clinics cannot cover all the needs of every patient. The sky is blue, too, in case you weren't aware.

 

Never mind the highlight that a surgery that should cost 5600$ costs 40000$, instead, because waste is not only justified, but encouraged. Never mind that a drug that costs 1 dollar is billed to the patient for 600$. No, let's talk about nurses that have to clean, or the more obvious, that those types of hospitals cannot serve every patient. You baffle me at times, SS...seriously.

Edited November 16, 2012 by Y2HH

[Reddy]

I thought this was appropriate for this thread as one of the things I've been saying for a lonnnnng time is that hospitals are the majority of the problem when it comes to pricing, and how they use insurance companies to skyrocket prices, and then hide behind them when the blame game begins. Some of the price markups they show in this video highlight exactly what I've been saying for years now.

 

absolutely. doctors, hospitals, the whole medical field is a giant money-making scam propagated by insurance companies.

[Y2HH]

The point wasn't to advocate that everyone pay for their own health care, as SS tried to imply.

 

The point was to highlight that doctors/hospitals, with the enabler that the insurance companies have become, are jacking up costs an amount that can only be considered "insane". I understand having a profit margin...but selling a drug for 600$ that you paid 1.50$ for is just astounding. It's not like we're talking about a drug the pharmaceutical company is charging hundreds of dollars for that's still under patent protection, but generic drugs that cost hospitals pennies, and they're turning around and charging their patients up charges of 50,000%, and getting away with it. It's the same reason why, when my wife was in the hospital having our first baby, that multiple line items of : Doctor visit : 300$, which constituted a nurse poking her head in the room and asking if she was feeling ok is something they get away with doing. Yes, this happened. Yes, the charges were 300$+ per time she was asked, "are you feeling ok", because apparently, in that world, that's what constitutes a "doctor visit".

 

It's patently absurd. Don't defend it.

Edited November 16, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

Wow.

 

Wasn't really the point, at all.

 

If we're relying on insurance, then there's no incentive for us to give a s*** about prices because we're not paying them (at least directly). For this sort of consumer-pricing model to work, you need to have unique situations like what was described in the video: someone who will simply foot the bill directly (or their company will do it for them). As long as Blue Cross Blue Shield (or Medicare) continues to pay for my procedure beyond my $500 deductible, I don't have incentive to price-shop my care. Nor is it always practical or possible to price-shop some of the most expensive care.

 

It's pretty common to see people in libertarian circles arguing against how we currently use health insurance, anyway. The general argument would be that we should be paying for all but catastrophic costs out-of-pocket, analogous to car insurance paying for crashes but not oil changes. But as long as every medical procedure and prescription cost continues to be obscured from the consumer by insurance, we don't have the incentive.

 

I pay $30/month for my medication regardless of whether I take the name-brand or the generic. And, even when consumers are paying for it, there's still huge name-brand power. Advil still dominates the ibuprofen market despite there being numerous generics that are significantly cheaper. Health has its own unique incentives of everyone always wanting the absolute best care because, hey, it's your body and your life. I might be okay with bargain-shopping at Kohls for sweaters instead of paying $200 at Nordstrum, but I probably wouldn't carry my frugality over to my choice of heart surgeon.

[Y2HH]

If we're relying on insurance, then there's no incentive for us to give a s*** about prices because we're not paying them (at least directly). For this sort of consumer-pricing model to work, you need to have unique situations like what was described in the video: someone who will simply foot the bill directly (or their company will do it for them). As long as Blue Cross Blue Shield (or Medicare) continues to pay for my procedure beyond my $500 deductible, I don't have incentive to price-shop my care. Nor is it always practical or possible to price-shop some of the most expensive care.

 

It's pretty common to see people in libertarian circles arguing against how we currently use health insurance, anyway. The general argument would be that we should be paying for all but catastrophic costs out-of-pocket, analogous to car insurance paying for crashes but not oil changes. But as long as every medical procedure and prescription cost continues to be obscured from the consumer by insurance, we don't have the incentive.

 

I pay $30/month for my medication regardless of whether I take the name-brand or the generic. And, even when consumers are paying for it, there's still huge name-brand power. Advil still dominates the ibuprofen market despite there being numerous generics that are significantly cheaper. Health has its own unique incentives of everyone always wanting the absolute best care because, hey, it's your body and your life. I might be okay with bargain-shopping at Kohls for sweaters instead of paying $200 at Nordstrum, but I probably wouldn't carry my frugality over to my choice of heart surgeon.

 

The fact is, even if you wanted to "price shop", you couldn't do it. It's general practice in that industry to not post prices until after the procedure was completed.

[StrangeSox]

The point wasn't to advocate that everyone pay for their own health care, as SS tried to imply.

 

The point was to highlight that doctors/hospitals, with the enabler that the insurance companies have become, are jacking up costs an amount that can only be considered "insane". I understand having a profit margin...but selling a drug for 600$ that you paid 1.50$ for is just astounding. It's not like we're talking about a drug the pharmaceutical company is charging hundreds of dollars for that's still under patent protection, but generic drugs that cost hospitals pennies, and they're turning around and charging their patients up charges of 50,000%, and getting away with it. It's the same reason why, when my wife was in the hospital having our first baby, that multiple line items of : Doctor visit : 300$, which constituted a nurse poking her head in the room and asking if she was feeling ok is something they get away with doing. Yes, this happened. Yes, the charges were 300$+ per time she was asked, "are you feeling ok", because apparently, in that world, that's what constitutes a "doctor visit".

 

It's patently absurd. Don't defend it.

 

I'm not defending overpricing. I'm criticizing Reason's solution: price-information-driven choices. As long as my insurance company is bearing the burden above my deductible or co-pay, I have no real incentive to price-shop my medical procedures.